The Supreme Court’s History

supreme court cases

The Supreme Court is the highest polled branch of the Federal Government. Despite is marks, though it doesn’t take much to beat near 0% approval, its history is perhaps the most controversial. From the very beginning the life-term justices began usurping power and instantly began dismantling every line of the constitution.

 

In its history we have seen new powers been self -granted by the courts, full disregard for the law, inconsistencies and contradictions in their rulings, full on reversals of their opinions despite the law not changing, and an increasing list of morally and legally indefensible decisions.

 

By looking at the history of the Supreme Court and their rulings it is evident of the level of corrupt and disregard the judges have for the law. Their legal opinions have left the realm of any legal backing, and are based entirely on their personal opinions. The following excerpts from their long history will clearly demonstrate their inability to act in defense of the constitution, the country, humanity, or the oath they swear upon. Now begins the look into their history accompanied with commentary.

 

In one of the earliest cases, Johnson V M’Intosh (1823), the cours ruled unanimously that Native Americans have no property rights. In the same ruling, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that discovery is the determining factor in ownership, but specifically only for European discovery. Discovery is the criteria for ownership… if you are white. This is a classic decision that was contradictory, but it set the early tone for how the courts would be ruling til this very day.

——————

 

One of the most recognized cases was Marburry v. Madison (1803). The U.S. Constitution clearly lays out the powers and limitations of all 3 branches of the government. While being specific on a wide range of issues, it never once states that the Supreme Court is able to declare a law unconstitutional. It was just within years that the court lied and made up a power that it has that is still used to this very day to take away liberties from the people. Judicial review and interpretation rights are nowhere to be found in their scope of powers.

———-

The “commerce clause” is one of those misused terms that the government has used to steal money from its citizens, tax citizens into poverty, bail out their companies and friends, increase the costs of doing business and raise prices as they get rich at the expense of the public. The clause literally reads as, “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;” Commerce by definition is an interexchange of goods and services. So congress has the power to regulate trade between foreign nations, indian tribes and between states. This seems to be a complicated concept for lawmakers, justices and politicians, so let’s break down this simple 1 sentence line into easier to understand statements. Congress is legally allowed to regulate trade between states (states trading). Congress is legally allowed to regulate trade between nations (nations trading). Congress is allowed to regulate trade with Indian tribes (trades with Indians). It is LIMITED to regulating trade and trade only. “Quality” standards are illegal. Emission standards are illegal. Mandates to buy products are illegal. Limits on work hours are illegal. Discrimination laws for private (private property) companies are illegal. Bailouts are illegal. Limits on salary are illegal. Literally near 99% of all government regulations on businesses and individuals are illegal. The Commerce Clause does not say, “Congress can regulate trade and regulate the economy, an industry or a business. It specifically says only “[trade]”.

 

Not only are the illegally giving themselves power, but in the event that they were to say their illegal act was indeed legal, that means it is legal! Common sense, but that is above the Supreme Court. They rule something is legal, they rule the exact same thing is illegal, then it is legal and then it is illegal again. The constitution did not change; they were lying one of the times.

 

In Gibbons v Ogden the court allowed the illegal regulation of the economy, though to be fair, they did rule correctly in that case. The regulation of the economy by New York was illegal, but instead of striking down the lie that allowed them to make the illegal decision, they used the lie to say the decision was illegal. Logical. This obscene decision would have been alright had they been consistent though. In 1895 the Supreme Court began reversing course and saying that the previous decisions that allowed the illegal regulation of the economy was no longer as “legal” as they said it was. For 40 years they stayed on the reverses course until the 1930’s when they changed their mind again. So it was illegal by the constitution to regulate the economy, but the courts ruled it was legal and expanded their regulations they said were legal, then they changed their mind and said that those regulations are not legal, then they changed their minds and said that they were legal once again. The law did not change during that time. The Commerce Clause did not change. The only thing that changed was the personal opinions of judges. Courts are legally required to rule based on the law, not their opinions. Illegal, Legal, Illegal, Legal. Consistency. Someone was lying when they kept changing their mind.

 ————–

The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 (1825) is one of the best cases by the corrupt Supreme Court. In its opinion it was ruled that, “that possession on board of a vessel was evidence of property.” Sadly they were talking about humans, not a commodity. It is good to know that the Constitution in some imaginary invisible ink had an amendment that stated “forced boarding onto a ship is the equivalent of being property.” Oh wait it doesn’t.

 ———

In an interesting case that applies to the recent health care ruling, Paul v. Virginia ruled that the commerce clause does not apply to insurance. If the constitution supposedly says that (which is doesn’t), then why was the healthcare case even heard on the grounds that the individual mandates violated the commerce clause? It can’t violate the clause if insurance doesn’t apply… Though in fairness, the other immense list of price increasing regulations did violate the commerce clause. That is ok though, they won’t rule on that because regulation is illegal, I mean legal, I mean illegal, I mean legal, I mean whatever lie the courts wake up and say that morning.

 ———————-

 

Reynolds v United States ruled that polygamy is protected by the constitution and to this day people are still not allowed to be in consensual relationships as they choose. It was the 7th amendment that said marriage is a right as long as it’s limited to one person, right? No. Another lie and illegal ruling by the courts.

————-

Pace v Alabama stated that bans on interracial marriage were constitutional. I guess “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is not in the constitution. Oh, they lied again. But it ok they later reversed course and said It is now legal after they said it is illegal.

——-

An almost silly if not for how utterly pathetic and corrupt it is, Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), ruled that regardless of the definition, a tomato is now a vegetable and not a fruit. By definition it is a fruit, but words mean whatever the court wants it to mean in their effort to fraud and strip away liberties from the population. Just like how a mandate to force someone to buy something is now called a “tax.” It’s not, but dictionaries and definitions can be disregarded at will by the honorable court.

 ————–

Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915) was an embarrassing 9 to 0 vote ruling that freedom of speech does not apply to movies.   I forgot that the first amendment read as, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (unless it is applied to a new media format), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” They lied again and stole rights once again. Strangely enough and with the courts tradition of being consistent and ruling on personal beliefs instead of law, it was over turned in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson. The constitution was not amended to say “not it is legal to express speech in movies.” The only thing that changes was the justices and how they lied that day. In a similar ruling that still exists to this day, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) stated that freedom of speech does not exist in “clear and present danger.” Ironically, once again that phrase is nowhere to be found in the first amendment. The only thing to be found is the continued lies and hypocrisies of the Supreme Court as they continue to steal away rights.

—-

 

Takao Ozawa v. United States is one of my favorite rulings in this court’s proud history. They ruled that Asians could not become citizens because they were an “unassimilable race.” This disgusting ruling doesn’t even merit a response.

——-

United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar was a case where the courts ruled that apple cider vinegar is mislabeled when that vinegar is made from dried apples. It is so entirely absurd and nonsensical it doesn’t merit a response either beyond this, “Vinegar isn’t vinegar because we said so.” Excellent use of power.

 

Lum v. Rice was a simple case that determined equal protection under the law does not extend to American citizens that were too yellow skinned. The same “separate but equal” lie was given to African Americans as well. It strangely was another one of those cases that was ruled as legal, then illegal despite no changes to the constitution. Once again the justices were lying.

————

De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937) ruled that freedom of assembly and speech was legal for those who had different political opinions, but it was conveniently and magically illegal in 1951 in Dennis v. United States.

 

Valentine v. Chrestensen: Free speech is not protected by the first amendment that protects free speech. Consistency and lies once again.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) –   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof does not apply to Jehova’s Witnesses.” This was the best amendment ever passed. Oh wait, it is not real. They ruled that despite the law saying “congress shall make no law” somehow means that congress shall make a law and limit a religion’s exercise. In this specific instance among the numerous other instances of lying and taking away freedoms, they said someone can be forced to salute a flag. That’s certainly in the constitution…

—–

Prince v. Massachusetts kept up the tradition of the courts hating Jehova’s Witnesses. If a mother or father is handing something out, their children cannot participate side by side with the family. Though idiotically enough, it was fine if they participated as long as the boy was over the age of 12 and the girl over the age of 18. Where does it say that in the constitution again?

—-

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944): Japanese-Americans are not citizens protected under the constitution. The espionage clause that strangely does not exist in the constitution was invoked saying rights don’t exist in the event of risk of espionage. It would be funny that a group of people could be so corrupt if it actually didn’t happen. Sadly it did and the courts said rounding up citizens and shipping them to camps is legal. Hmm… what other country was doing that at the same time? Good thing our soldiers were fighting to defend our freedom to be detained in a camp against our will.

————-

Girouard v. United States             328 U.S. 61 (1946)            pacifism is not a reason to deny an immigrant citizenship. Overturned United States v. Schwimmer (1929). Another case of them lying. It is legal, wait no its not. Nothing changed but their lies.

———

One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) ruled that homosexuality is obscene and is not free speech in magazine form. I do recall the first amendment saying that… oh wait… it didn’t. The very next year they conveniently changed their mind once again and said it is free speech.

———–

Let’s cut it off there. Just a small sample of our court’s corrupt and contradictory history filled full of lies. Obamacare is constitutional so we can rest easy at night knowing that it is as constitutional as blacks being property, yellow skinned people not being allowed to be citizens, freedom of speech not being free speech, word’s definitions are not defined by their definitions and a large list of other legal obscenities.

 

Something is either constitutional, or it is not constitutional. It does not change without an amendment. The courts have used their history to seize power, lie, rule on their opinions, push racist agendas onto the population, steal from the population and serve as the most corrupt branch of government. When a court rules something constitutional, it means absolutely nothing, as they have watered down the word to mean nothing through contradictions and lies. But at least we can say Obamacare has now joined the ranks of blacks being property if they are forced on a boat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.